Looking for proof of Superpositional Energy Conservation

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the conservation of energy in the context of wave superposition, specifically focusing on electromagnetic waves and their power output. Participants explore the mathematical proof of how superposition aligns with the Law of Conservation of Energy (CoE) and the implications of Maxwell's equations in this context.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants assert that the power output of waves, which is proportional to the square of their amplitudes, should remain constant after superposition, in accordance with the Law of CoE.
  • Others argue that a dynamical model is necessary to analyze the waves, suggesting that starting from a Lagrangian and applying Noether's theorem is essential for understanding the energy-momentum tensor and energy balance.
  • Several participants present the energy density and Poynting vector equations, discussing their implications for energy conservation in electromagnetic waves.
  • Some contributions question the relevance of certain quantities in the context of Poynting's theorem, suggesting that the naive interpretation of the Poynting vector before and after superposition may be incorrect.
  • There are discussions about the behavior of intensity patterns from coherent and incoherent sources, with some participants suggesting that these patterns do not necessarily obey linear superposition principles.
  • Some participants express differing views on the relevance of quantum mechanics to the discussion, with some insisting on a classical perspective while others introduce quantum considerations related to photon phases and energy conservation.
  • There is a contention regarding the definition of linearity in the context of electromagnetic fields, with some asserting that the fields meet the definition of linearity despite the non-linear behavior of energy equations.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the relationship between superposition and energy conservation, with multiple competing views on the necessity of quantum mechanics, the interpretation of Poynting's theorem, and the definition of linearity in the context of electromagnetic waves.

Contextual Notes

Limitations in the discussion include the dependence on specific models of waves, the need for clear definitions of terms such as "linearity," and the unresolved nature of how to superpose Poynting vector fields without additional information about the electric and magnetic fields.

  • #31
greswd said:
If we really need to abandon infinitesimally small slit widths
It is an approximation. It is never "true", but it can be "valid" (meaning "close enough"). Its validity depends entirely on what you want to use it for, and when you get a clearly wrong answer it is always good to go back and check your approximations. For the purpose of post 26, the approximation gives an answer that is no longer "close enough", so it is not a valid approximation.

greswd said:
For a slit-spacing and wavelength ratio of 1, the superposed area is 22% larger than the un-superposed one. That's a pretty large discrepancy when we're trying to make the case that there should be no discrepancy at all.
What are you referring to here? What is this superposed area and what is the case are you trying to make?
 
Last edited:
Science news on Phys.org
  • #32
greswd said:
What are you referring to here? What is this superposed area and what is the case are you trying to make?

The area under the intensity function that I first mentioned in #18.

You can play with the Desmos widget too:
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/8gcwydxb4t
 
  • #33
greswd said:
The area under the intensity function that I first mentioned in #18
Again neither the intensity nor the Poynting vector obey superposition. As far as I understand what you are doing, the claim that there is no discrepancy is false, and it is not a case that I am trying to make.

The fields obey Maxwell's equations, which is linear and therefore the fields obey superposition. The fields also conserve energy, per Poynting's theorem. The intensity is the magnitude of the Poynting vector, so it is only a part of the energy conservation equation. Furthermore, the Poynting vector itself does not obey superposition.

Superposition and energy conservation are separate concepts.
 
  • #34
Dale said:
Again neither the intensity nor the Poynting vector obey superposition. The claim that there is no discrepancy is false, and it is not a case that I am trying to make.

The fields obey Maxwell's equations, which is linear and therefore the fields obey superposition. The fields also conserve energy, per Poynting's theorem. The intensity is the magnitude of the Poynting vector, so it is only a part of the energy conservation equation. Furthermore, the Poynting vector itself does not obey superposition.

Superposition and energy conservation are separate concepts.
If the intensity is only a part of the energy conservation equation, what's the other part?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
615
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
7K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K